From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Wed Sep 29 2004 - 17:26:16 EDT
Hi Jerry, thanks for your reply. I think that introducing skilled and unsskilled labor does not deal with the problem for they have different costs of reproduction and therefore different values of labor power. Therefore they cannot have equal wages nor there could be a tendency to equalize them. It is much more striking to see that even when skills are similar, competition based as it is on different methods and efficiency levels tend to create wage disparities. Think about carpentry labor on furniture production. Or construction firms. Small construction companies such as the one I used to build my house probably pay much less to its workers than large companies. I am strictly thinking about different wages for the same level of skills in the same trade. It seems that these differences spring from the necessity that the weaker capitals economize on wages in order to be able to renounce a fraction of surplus labor, that is, sell cheaper, in order to be able to compete. Paulo Paul Cockshott wrote: > I note that the original propositions here have got > at bit derailed. > There were two issues originally > 1. Whether in a pre-capitalist society there would > be enough long term mobility of social labour between > trades to enforce the law of value. The equalisation here > is not of wages but of returns to labour. Equalisation of > wages in a capitalist economy is obviously a different > issue, as these relate to labour power not labour. > > 2. The proposition of Farjoun and Machover on the narrow > spread of profit shares ( ratio of profit to wages in a > firm or sector ) has also been at issue. Note that this > does not suppose an equalisation of wages but an equalisation > of the share of wages in net value added between sectors. > > This related indirectly to the point raised by Dave Z about > narrower dispersions of the profit share being correlated > at least in the Swedish case to closer approximations to > a 50 50 split of net value added between wages and profits. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald A. Levy > Sent: Sat 9/25/2004 2:25 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: (OPE-L) Re: tendencies for equalization > > Hi Paolo. > > > Curiously enough I think competition among workers does not lead to > > equalization tendencies, on the contrary. > > In fact I think this equalization story runs against just about everything > > that springs out of Marx´s analysis: > > 1. different techniques within an industry leads to the exploitation of > > different strata of the working class; the least productive capitals use > > the lower strata of the working class, pay a lot less and sacrifice > > a bit of the surplus value so extracted in order to be able to compete > > with the most advanced capitals; > > 2. the analysis under 1 is supported by the stratification of the > > industrial reserve army into several different levels of despair and > > holplessness so that competion among workers can easily be used > > by capitals of different efficiencies; > > 3. the heterogeneous nature of the industrial reserve army puts different > > pressures on different segments of the labor market so that depression of > > wages is not necessarily homogeneous all across industries and firms. > > As you've seen, I've also challenged the belief that there is a long-term > tendency for wage equalization under capitalism. While I agree with much > of what you write, I think the above is the case: > > a) at a level of abstraction where there is foreign trade and world > markets and/or; > > b) for an individual capitalist social formation where/if the market for > labour power is spatially divided and when/if labour mobility between > sectors/segments is inhibited (as, for example, in the case of a 'dual > economy' with segmented labour markets). > > I think, though, that one should *first* analyze this question at > a level of abstraction where neither a) or b) are considered > and *then* ask how a) and b) modify the abstract tendencies > assumed at an earlier stage in the reconstruction of the subject in > thought. > > As I've suggested earlier, all that is required to show the fallacy > of the tendency for wage rate equalization is to assume that: > > a) there are separate markets for unskilled labour power and skilled > labour power; > > b) while mobility by unskilled workers is not (assumed to > be) inhibited in the market for unskilled labour-power, > mobility from the unskilled to the skilled labour-market > is assumed to either not exist or be negligible. And, it is > further assumed that skilled workers only have mobility within > their particular trade. > > c) there is an industrial reserve army; > > d) the IRA and the demand for labour-power (both skilled and > unskilled) are variables that are subject to change over the > course of the trade cycle. > > However, what you write above would be a logical next step: > i.e. to ask whether wage disparities increase where > technological change and competition among firms are more > explicitly taken into consideration. That analysis also, > though, should initially be conducted at the level of abstraction > of 'capital in general' (and hence international and > regional trade and markets are initially not considered). > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 02 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT